4 ms·

I think you missed the point. jgc is not saying he believes the photograph has been staged, but that it looks like it has been. In other words, how did a photo

by spuz 13y ago

I think you missed the point. jgc is not saying he believes the photograph has been staged, but that it looks like it has been. In other words, how did a photo that is so obviously fake win a photography contest?

DanBC 13y ago
Is there a site to compare the other entrants? A bunch of photographs today "look faked" - sometimes that's great (and lucky) lighting, or gentle tweaking of levels, or outright fakery. And the fakey look is what makes it a remarkable photo. Those faces really pop out. I'm surprised it won if they didn't get to see the RAW image. But maybe I misread the article.
coldtea 13y ago
>I think you missed the point. jgc is not saying he believes the photograph has been staged, but that it looks like it has been. In other words, how did a photo that is so obviously fake win a photography contest? I'm confused. Your "in other words" conflict with your previous statement. (1) "jgc is not saying he believes the photograph has been staged, but that it looks like it has been". (2) "In other words, how did a photo that is so obviously fake win a photography contest?" So, is he saying that it is fake (and "obviously" so), or that it merely "looks fake"? And, may I ask, what is that "obviously fake" about it, besides color adjustments? Now, it's true that color adjustment is frowned upon in certain news circles, but it's used a lot in magazine reporting, and it's not that different than what you could achieve with your choice of camera (or film in a previous era). That kind of alteration might, or might not, be acceptable for a photo competition. As for "obviously fake" as in "he staged it by putting the people in a specific position", "had lights" etc, I don't see any signs about that -- or even find it that possible given the circumstances. Those are not some "damn arabs, doing PR work and pretending to be sad and enraged". Those are parents, neighbors and friends, holding their dead children. The way some people commented here, they might as well been subhumans in the picture. For the composition part, if a photographer is half competent, he can get a very good composition out of such as scene without even trying. And he's not some tourist with his point and shoot. (Disclaimer: I've done some professional photography back in the day, but mostly travel work and interviews / portraits, not news).
- sesqu 13y ago
  The picture looks unnatural. Whether this was achieved with props or post-processing is not relevant - what is relevant is that it won a competition for realistic photos, despite not exhibiting realism.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    It wasn't a competition for "realistic photos" it was a competition for real photos. Photojournalistic work. The difference is important. A photo can look as "unrealistic" as can be, as long as it's real, it's OK. So a picture doesn't have to "exhibit realism" to win such a competition. It just has to be real. If it looks uncanny, all the better. The line is draw at actual image manipulation. Compositing people in, changing a face, removing elements etc. As for color adjustments and light fixes, those are sometimes frowned upon, other time totally accepted in journalistic work. Anytime a photo editor gets a jpeg from the camera RAW, some work of that kind has already been done. Including the camera letting you pick several options, from sharpening to color balance (and more traditional stuff like bokeh, depth of field and shutter speed, each having it's own artistic effect. Does a 1 sec photograph of a running river look "realistic"?) I've seen pictures made on an iPhone with stuff like Instagram in Afganistan/Iraq by photojournalists that won many awards, despite looking totally unrealistic with regards to neutral tone/color coming out of a camera. E.g: http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/iphone-photos-afghanistan-war http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/iphone-photos-afgh...

by spuz 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

Is there a site to compare the other entrants? A bunch of photographs today "look faked" - sometimes that's great (and lucky) lighting, or gentle tweaking of levels, or outright fakery. And the fakey look is what makes it a remarkable photo. Those faces really pop out. I'm surprised it won if they didn't get to see the RAW image. But maybe I misread the article.

coldtea 13y ago

>I think you missed the point. jgc is not saying he believes the photograph has been staged, but that it looks like it has been. In other words, how did a photo that is so obviously fake win a photography contest? I'm confused. Your "in other words" conflict with your previous statement. (1) "jgc is not saying he believes the photograph has been staged, but that it looks like it has been". (2) "In other words, how did a photo that is so obviously fake win a photography contest?" So, is he saying that it is fake (and "obviously" so), or that it merely "looks fake"? And, may I ask, what is that "obviously fake" about it, besides color adjustments? Now, it's true that color adjustment is frowned upon in certain news circles, but it's used a lot in magazine reporting, and it's not that different than what you could achieve with your choice of camera (or film in a previous era). That kind of alteration might, or might not, be acceptable for a photo competition. As for "obviously fake" as in "he staged it by putting the people in a specific position", "had lights" etc, I don't see any signs about that -- or even find it that possible given the circumstances. Those are not some "damn arabs, doing PR work and pretending to be sad and enraged". Those are parents, neighbors and friends, holding their dead children. The way some people commented here, they might as well been subhumans in the picture. For the composition part, if a photographer is half competent, he can get a very good composition out of such as scene without even trying. And he's not some tourist with his point and shoot. (Disclaimer: I've done some professional photography back in the day, but mostly travel work and interviews / portraits, not news).

sesqu 13y ago
The picture looks unnatural. Whether this was achieved with props or post-processing is not relevant - what is relevant is that it won a competition for realistic photos, despite not exhibiting realism.
- coldtea 13y ago
  It wasn't a competition for "realistic photos" it was a competition for real photos. Photojournalistic work. The difference is important. A photo can look as "unrealistic" as can be, as long as it's real, it's OK. So a picture doesn't have to "exhibit realism" to win such a competition. It just has to be real. If it looks uncanny, all the better. The line is draw at actual image manipulation. Compositing people in, changing a face, removing elements etc. As for color adjustments and light fixes, those are sometimes frowned upon, other time totally accepted in journalistic work. Anytime a photo editor gets a jpeg from the camera RAW, some work of that kind has already been done. Including the camera letting you pick several options, from sharpening to color balance (and more traditional stuff like bokeh, depth of field and shutter speed, each having it's own artistic effect. Does a 1 sec photograph of a running river look "realistic"?) I've seen pictures made on an iPhone with stuff like Instagram in Afganistan/Iraq by photojournalists that won many awards, despite looking totally unrealistic with regards to neutral tone/color coming out of a camera. E.g: http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/iphone-photos-afghanistan-war http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/iphone-photos-afgh...